The Sins of the Father: Bible Error

by JosephAlward 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JT

  Hey Joe

  I love the series on bible contridictions-

  one of the cooliest things about the bible is how the God of both parts ---OT and NT changed so much, it was as if we went from Stone Cold Steve Austin to Phil Donahue

  i mean even died in the wool bible believers who say that "Jesus is god"

  which means by default that the jesus/god of the nt is the same dude backin the OT

  check this out-- when jesus was back in the Ot he was a "Kicking A$$- taking no names kind of guy"

  he was not into that "Turn the other cheek stuff" more like a George Bush kinda guy "let's go kick some Canninite Butt"

  then after 400+ of saying nothing to mankind he comes back on the scene talking about "Love your enemies"

  i can see the avg jew back then after reading about how their granddads fought with "General Patton, General Joshua, etc. rolling into villiages after villiages taking all that was not bolted down and even had Jesus/God tell them to take the "Virgins girls for their Booty"

  now when jesus said that back in the ot as god was he talking about booty as in spoil or was he talking about "Booty" as in Booty smile

  i guess it didn't matter to them anyway cause they got that Booty too

  at any rate ---i can just see some jewish dude after reading the OT say :

  "Hey don't mess with Jesus/god cause he will "Pimp Slap You" and then here comes the same jesus/god in the NT talking about Love and pray for your emenies-

  the jew would say "Like Hell-- all the praying we are going to do is pray this this arrow don't miss your A$$---- smile

  as once was stated the beleiver is "REQUIRE TO DO GYMNASTICs"

  to keep from having to admit that some of the stuff in the bible is just Goofy
• 

  JT

  the comment was made:

  "That God knew they would do this...does not make Him responsible for such acts"

  ###########

  this has to be one of the most powerful concepts that a believer holds dear to their heart.

  the avg believer will concede:

  "yes god knows when something bad is going to happen"

  "yes god COULD stop it"

  "yes god many times is the ONLY ONE WHO CAN STOP IT, but choses not to stop it"

  after admitting all of those things above ----they will then say , But he is not responisble,

  in fact they will not even concede--- that if he is not directly 100% reponsible he is at least 3 or 4 % responsible

  nope-- no such concession is forth coming

  so i was trying to think of what situation could one think of where another person be it a policeman, parent , teacher, goverment official, stock broker, etc where they have information about something that will happen that will result in loss of life as well as being the ONLY ONE WHO can do something about it and DON'T

  yet still be viewed as not sharing ANY RESPONIBITY in the outcome, and it is only god who is given such a free pass to " GO PASS JAIL"

  Yes
• 

  JT

  just a followup

  often times Reporters are known to claim this type of MERELY AN OBSERVER type mindset that believers often attribute to god, but i would ask,

  if you had a son serving in the services and he along with 3 other soldiers we patroling along a road where CNN had a camera man and a reporter who knew that up the road were 20 guys waiting to ambush them and SAID or did NOTHING since they are ONLY OBSERVERS AND are not suppose to MAKE THE NEWS only report the news ---what would you think?
• 

  A Paduan

  If the Bible-believer is forced to agree that some of the passages in the Bible are not literally true, then he has little defense against those who would argue that perhaps most of the stories about Jesus in the gospels are not literally true, either. That means that perhaps the "resurrection" was not a bodily resurrection, but merely a spiritual one. This is the argument that faces those who don't insist that the Bible be taken to be literally true in all of its parts.

  Forced to agree to a non-literal truth? Who forces - those who make something fit anyway - makking a yes no and a no yes? Pushing for a literal understanding, generally after reading or hearing lots of scripture. "is it not the rich that oppress you" It is the business of goats to eat the food that was given to the sheep.

  To move on, the "little defense" in terms of the proof that men require is not another 'error' - free will is sacred thing. You've already heard that "an evil generation seeks for a sign". It's everyone's perogative to deny the resurrection - and indeed it's everyone's perogative to decide whether it's an 'error' that it may be denied.

  And the only "argument" to face is "which parts say what" but again why remains your choice. It's an individual thing "how you hear".

  paduan

  Edited by - a paduan on 13 October 2002 22:51:38
• 

  Dark Knight

  JT, you da man!

  LOVE your style!!

  Cheers, Dark Knight
• 

  JosephMalik

  Or, how it could be that Jesus spent three days and nights (literally) in the tomb, even though he was buried just before sundown on Friday (just before the beginning of sabbath), and was missing from the tomb on the "first day of the week" (Monday). Count the days and nights, and you will see they don't add up to three each.

  JosephAlward,

  This was covered here on JWD in detail some time ago. But if anyone wants to know the answer all they have to do is download Beyond Watchtower Doctrine at: http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/

  Jesus did spend three days and nights (literally) in the tomb, not complete ones but still three literal days and nights. This is because He was entombed on a Thursday and raised Sunday morning while it was still night in this exact order.

  Joseph
• 

  JosephMalik

  Of course, this insistence causes no end of problems for the apologist, who must explain, for example, how it could be that there were "mornings" (sunrises) and "evenings" (sunsets) on the first three "days" of creation, even though the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.

  3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

  Joseph Alward,

  The expression days is not limited to 24 hours in scripture. They are simply epochs divided in this manner. This was discussed here on JWD just recently. The Sun existed on the first day as shown above. It did not rule the days and nights however until the 4 th day when the trees and grasses cleared up the atmosphere enough for them to be dominant. And the stars began to show through then as well.

  :14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

  15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

  :19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

  This is well within the meaning of the word made or hse asah aw-saw .

  There is no contradiction in the texts here. But if there is please show it clearly.

  Joseph
• 

  JosephAlward

  Joseph Alward writes,

  In trying to erase the obvious contradiction found in Genesis concering the creation of the sun, apologists fail to explain how there could have been a "morning" and then an "evening" on the first, second, and third days without a sun. Mornings begin when the earth's rotation gives the appearance of a rising sun, while the evenings begin when the sun appears to fall below the horizon. None of these events could have happened during the first three "days," because there was no sun until the fourth day. If there's no sun, then there could have been no sunrise or sunset.
• 

  Bona Dea

  The Lords Rule: Don't Punish Children for the Sins of the Fathers

  "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

  Note: children are NOT to be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Compare this to the contradictory teaching below:

  The Lord Breaks His Rule and Punishes the Children

  In addition to the scripture you've already cited, I'd like to add this little gem:

  Exodus 34:7 (NWT), " 7 preserving loving-kindness for thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but by no means will he give exemption from punishment, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation." (and again in Numbers 14:18)

  Perhaps, they just couldn't make up their minds as to which command to observe

  Edited by - Bona Dea on 14 October 2002 14:30:25

  Edited by - Bona Dea on 14 October 2002 14:31:5
• 

  JosephAlward

  Bona Dea observers, "Perhaps, they just couldn't make up their minds as to which command to observe"

  Joe Alward comments:
  
  That's an amusing possibility. I imagine the explanation is pretty simple: the folks who decided which writings should appear in the Bible seemed to care little whether the passages were consistent. They just provided a cross section of stories and opinions about Yahweh, never mind whether the writers contradicted each other.